Jack White Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 Click on... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...otillard101.xml Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 My neice lives in Paris. She was telling me yesterday that a large section of the French population share the views of Marion Cotillard on 9/11. This was of course also true of the assassination of JFK. In fact, most Europeans are very distrustful of the CIA. There is a long history of the CIA attempting to manipulate election results in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 David I don't know how to make it any clearer than it already is. I quoted what Hopsicker said and I quoted the two unrealed passages from the article that he confused/conflated, below that I summarized his errors.I bolded the Hopsicker quote, don't know if that will help. His 3 biggest errors were saying Atta made the call when there is no indication who made them and they almost certainly weren't made by "Mohamed" The call was made the week before 9/11 when they were made some time before April 25 The call was recieved by Ms. LaConca's former employee when they were made to Keller It is simple enough really. I want to compare what Daniel stated with the sources you used. So kindly post relevant extracts from the other sources and cite them by name and with a link where available. That way a clear comparison can be made. As it stands we are left relying on the accuracy of your posting -- and in view of several factually inaccurate statements and other misrepresentations (not to mention the willful use of slanted language -- i.e., doctoring, hearsay etc) made by you throughout this thread, it is not an unreasonable request to expect you to clarify what is not immediately clear and obvious to the rest of us. Therefore please humour us all and post a fact by fact comparison with citations. Once we have this we can then judge the weight of what you say and see if descriptive words you use like "fake" are accurate representations, or just another example of your hitherto demonstrated proclivity to indulge in gutter journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) no evidence of tampering. Edited March 2, 2008 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 She’s beautiful and an excellent actress but there is no reason to take her views on 9/11 and the Moon landings any more seriously than that of the person who sweeps the sidewalk in front of her apartment building. About 10% of the US thinks it’s “very likely” that the towers were brought down with explosives; I have no idea what the number is in France. In both countries we would expect a certain percentage of the members of any given profession to believe this. In the US at least I’ve seen no evidence that the percentage of people whose professional backgrounds would give them better insight into what happened believe it was “an inside job” at the same rate of the general population. The number of pilots or engineers who have publicly embraced such theories is some tiny faction of 1% of license holders, The points she mentioned have already been debunked here the towers for example were at close to capacity and thus presumably profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) David I don't know how to make it any clearer than it already is. I quoted what Hopsicker said and I quoted the two unrealed passages from the article that he confused/conflated, below that I summarized his errors.I bolded the Hopsicker quote, don't know if that will help. His 3 biggest errors were saying Atta made the call when there is no indication who made them and they almost certainly weren't made by "Mohamed" The call was made the week before 9/11 when they were made some time before April 25 The call was recieved by Ms. LaConca's former employee when they were made to Keller It is simple enough really. I want to compare what Daniel stated with the sources you used. So kindly post relevant extracts from the other sources and cite them by name and with a link where available. That way a clear comparison can be made. As it stands we are left relying on the accuracy of your posting -- and in view of several factually inaccurate statements and other misrepresentations (not to mention the willful use of slanted language -- i.e., doctoring, hearsay etc) made by you throughout this thread, it is not an unreasonable request to expect you to clarify what is not immediately clear and obvious to the rest of us. Therefore please humour us all and post a fact by fact comparison with citations. Once we have this we can then judge the weight of what you say and see if descriptive words you use like "fake" are accurate representations, or just another example of your hitherto demonstrated proclivity to indulge in gutter journalism. David I don’t know how to make this any plainer. For the third time now here are the relevant extacts of what Hopsicker and the newspaper said. I doubt anybody else is noit grasping this, it is quite simple, you are have another of your "Where is you biography" moments. WHAT HOPSICKER SAID: “Even more incredibly, Tony Laconca's then-wife Vonnie told authorities that she had learned that her former cleaning company employee got a phone call from Atta during the week before the Sept.11 attack.” “Keller was arrested on a minor bad check charge a few weeks later, , and Atta returned the favor by bailing her out of Sarasota’s South County Jail.” http://www.madcowprod.com/mc302004.html WHAT REALLY HAPPENED (According to the article he cited) “In an effort to locate Keller, the [FDLE] agent accompanied Tony LaConca to the North Port Police Department to pick up a Feb. 25 police report in which Keller had called police about harassing cell phone calls. According to the police report, after Keller called police about the calls, a computer check was conducted and showed an outstanding warrant from Marion County on a worthless check charge. "Mohamed bailed her out of South County Jail," Vonnie LaConca said….” [9 paragraphs later] "The couple learned more about Mohamed from a then-employee of Vonnie's cleaning company. After meeting Mohamed and Keller on Feb. 21, the former employee joined the couple on an adventure to Key West the following day.” http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsArchive2/091401/tp4ch14.htm THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT HOPSICKER SAID AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENED - The calls were made before February 25, 6 ½ months before 9/11 (not “the week before”) - The is no indication who the calls were from, it would have been odd if he made the calls then bailed her out. The calls probably happened during the weekend when “Mohamed” was with her. - Vonnie LaConca was still married to her husband Tony (she was not his "then.wife") - She said that Keller (not her ex-employee) got the calls - She never said she learned about the calls from the ex-employee -Keller’s arrest/bailout happened the day after, (not weeks after) the weekend in Keywest. -He missed the connection made clear in the article between the calls and Keller’s arrest. -She said calls (plural) he said call (singular) All of this is in addition to omitting the fact that Ms. LaConca said he wasn’t Atta and her husband never saying it was and the doctored quote. The article also seriously undermines the Hopsicker/Keller fable. They claimed that she humiliated him by dumping him for another guy at a night club in front of their friends, taking the guy home with her, forcing Atta to sleep on the sofa, then tossing his bags into the parking lot and continuing to shack up with her new boyfriend. He then retaliated by slaughtering her cats. Love truly is strange but it’s hard to believe (but not impossible) that these two would be shacked up again a few months later. Keller omitting that several months after she claims to have broken up with him was with him again further undermines her credibility. Edited March 2, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) Correction I missed the following sentence: “The couple said the agent tried to locate and interview the unnamed employee, however they said she was "uncooperative to the agent." However, Vonnie learned the former employee made telephone contact with Mohamed last week.” http://www.sun-herald.com/NewsArchive2/091401/tp4ch14.htm THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT HOPSICKER SAID AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENED - Vonnie LaConca said the ex-employee called Mohamed not vice versa -She said Mohamed WASN'T Atta - She was still married to her husband Tony. -Keller’s arrest/bailout happened the day after, (not weeks after) the weekend in Keywest. Edited March 2, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 The 1st statement referred to the time you posted post # 25 since I answering (sic) a question you originally asked in it, the 2nd as of # 34 since I was respomding (sic) to an answered you made in it. Hard to understand what you're saying. Your tortured syntax aside, you admit above post #25 was a question, then in the very same post you deny it: Exactly you reworded the sentence. It had previously been an indirect question not directed at me and seemed rhetorical. Oh and since you are such a stickler for grammar, indirect questions aren’t supposed to end in question marks. If I was a stickler, as you maintain, you can believe I could comment on almost every post that you make. I generally make my criticisms when your syntax is so poor it makes your sentences almost impossible to comprehend. See above. Also I didn’t “intimate that [you are] a xxxx", I introduced that with “according to Drago”. In case you missed it I’m not exactly a fan, he stupidly accused me of being a xxxx because I truncated a statement of his in the following post. You both deny and admit in the same sentence. And you wonder why people don't respect your methods. Of course you intimated that I am a xxxx. What following post are you talking about? You failed to provide it. Here it is: According to Drago that makes you something I’m not allowed to say. What was it that Guyatt said about deflection? Odd that if the above was so inane that you avoided responding. Get your facts straight. This was my entirely appropriate response: Like I said, no one would be foolish enough to pay you to write this stuff. "Indicative of your extremely limited mindset and why most here (Evan excluded) consider you a lightweight."Once again you arrogantly presume to speak for most members of the forum. Based on PMs, e-mails and posts there are more than a few people who disagree with you. Is Robert Charles-Dunne one of them? Oh, I forgot. It was he that exposed you when you tried to bring your foolishness over to the JFK section. Would some of those private emails you get come from Mark Stapleton, David Healy, Craig Lamson, Sid Walker, Jack White, Peter Lemkin, Charles Drago, David Guyatt, Dawn Meredith, Richard Welser, Terry Mauro? Want me to search the archives and get a dozen more members that probably haven't sent you many emails disagreeing with me. Oh. let me add Bill Kelly to the list. I know Len, you have claimed you almost never provoke people, you don't engage in semantic battles, you document most everything you say, the only reason people constantly get into it with you is because you are a conspiracy debunker, To hear you put it, it's always the other guy's fault. With apologies to Churchill, Len, you're a very modest man. Indeed you have a lot to be modest about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Precisely. You can have an opinion, and you can say things that SOUND right... but they are only significant if the facts back them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) Precisely. You can have an opinion, and you can say things that SOUND right... but they are only significant if the facts back them up. Incorrect opinions/statements are often significant. Edited March 2, 2008 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) The 1st statement referred to the time you posted post # 25 since I answering (sic) a question you originally asked in it, the 2nd as of # 34 since I was respomding (sic) to an answered you made in it. Hard to understand what you're saying. Your tortured syntax aside, you admit above post #25 was a question, then in the very same post you deny it: Exactly you reworded the sentence. It had previously been an indirect question not directed at me and seemed rhetorical. Oh and since you are such a stickler for grammar, indirect questions aren’t supposed to end in question marks. First you rephrased what you had said; now you misrepresent what I said. If you really had a case you wouldn’t have to twist our words to make it. I never denied it was a question. I said (emphasis added): “It had previously been an indirect QUESTION not directed at me and seemed rhetorical.” In the other quote I referred to it simply as a question for simplicity, should I have said? “The 1st statement referred to the time you posted post # 25 since I was answering an indirect question not directed at me which seemed rhetorical you originally asked in it” That would have been unnecessarily bulky, wouldn’t it? Also I didn’t “intimate that [you are] a xxxx", I introduced that with “according to Drago”. In case you missed it I’m not exactly a fan, he stupidly accused me of being a xxxx because I truncated a statement of his in the following post. You both deny and admit in the same sentence. And you wonder why people don't respect your methods. Of course you intimated that I am a xxxx. What part of “according to” are you unable to comprehend? If I say that according to the logic of someone I (virtually) always sharply disagree with, that something is true, it doesn’t follow that I’m endorsing that position. If you were to say (to someone else), “According to Len Colby that makes you a …” would it be logical to assume that is how you felt about the person? "What following post are you talking about? You failed to provide it. Here it is:" The “following post” as in the post following Drago’s. Drago made an inaccurate statement about damage to the Pentagon, in the “following” (i.e. subsequent, next) post I truncated his statement and showed that it was false. Even though my post debunked his complete comment he claimed I was a xxxx. I was explicitly referring to that incident. What was it that Guyatt said about deflection? Odd that if the above was so inane that you avoided responding. Get your facts straight. This was my entirely appropriate response: Like I said, no one would be foolish enough to pay you to write this stuff. What on earth are you going on about? Whether your response was “entirely appropriate” or “deflection” is a matter of opinion not “fact”. You’re still deflecting; can we take it that some of the wildly inaccurate comments you’ve made (i.e. “the above”) are "Indicative of your extremely limited mindset”? Tell us again about how the 9/11 C. Report had “barely a page about Atta” (Approximate quote). NOTE: I won’t respond to you any further until you address this point. "Indicative of your extremely limited mindset and why most here (Evan excluded) consider you a lightweight."Once again you arrogantly presume to speak for most members of the forum. Based on PMs, e-mails and posts there are more than a few people who disagree with you. Is Robert Charles-Dunne one of them? Oh, I forgot. It was he that exposed you when you tried to bring your foolishness over to the JFK section. Would some of those private emails you get come from Mark Stapleton, David Healy, Craig Lamson, Sid Walker, Jack White, Peter Lemkin, Charles Drago, David Guyatt, Dawn Meredith, Richard Welser, Terry Mauro? Want me to search the archives and get a dozen more members that probably haven't sent you many emails disagreeing with me. Oh. let me add Bill Kelly to the list. I never said or implied that any of the above sent me PM’s or e-mail you and them still don’t constitute a majority of forum members. I of course take positions contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of forum members thus it is to be expected that I will be attacked, I have challenged claims made by most of the above and they can’t expect to be happy about it. Many of the compliments/support have come from other “debunkers” but others have come from members with more conspiracist bents. I won’t name those who made such comments privately but several of them are moderators. Steve Turner, Josiah Thompson, Bill Miller, Ron Ecker and John Simkin have publicly made positive comments about contributions here (and yes the latter two have been critical as well). Jack, Peter and Drago are obviously completely and openly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their views, the first classifies them as “stupid” and “disinformation agents”; the second as “borg” and Nazi or Nazi like (Craig, Evan, Steve Ullman and I have all been so labeled) and the later simply as “the enemy”. The antics of the former got him on moderation. Healy also is obnoxious to those who disagree with him, I’m hardly the only one to be on the receiving end of his vitriol. IIRC the two of you got into some nasty dust ups as well. As for RCD the debate didn’t go well for him on that thread. Mark and I have sharp ideological differences and he seems to have been particularly bothered that I challenged him to document a wild claim. I had even sharper ideological difference with Sid than with Mark, he’s a Holocaust denying Hitler apologist and probable anti-Semite many members of my family were killed during the Holocaust. If there was one thing Peter and I agree on about this forum it was distaste for Mr. Walker. If you want to make common cause with him, that’s your problem. Richard rather than admit he made an undocumented and almost certainly false claim attacked the messenger. Etc etc. As for Bill, He seems to have gotten upset that I took a swipe at Scott, I don’t think he is hostile to me in general, we shall see. You want to do a forum search? Knock yourself out! Odd that you would list Craig as one of my detractors. Though we disagree over politics our relationship on this and other forums has always been friendly, civil and respectful. "I know Len, you have claimed you almost never provoke people, you don't engage in semantic battles, you document most everything you say, the only reason people constantly get into it with you is because you are a conspiracy debunker, To hear you put it, it's always the other guy's fault." I try to avoid getting into semantic battles but sometimes individuals such as you twist my words to claim I said things I didn’t and yes I am good about documenting my claims. It’s not “always the other guy's fault” but normally is, I challenged my detractors to cite examples of where I had cast the first stone and had no takers. Take our exchanges for example, would it be safe to say you initiated over 90%? "With apologies to Churchill, Len, you're a very modest man. Indeed you have a lot to be modest about." You’re better at making insults than logical arguments Edited March 2, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Tell us again about how the 9/11 C. Report had “barely a page about Atta” (Approximate quote).NOTE: I won’t respond to you any further until you address this point. I'm going to give you exactly what you're asking for. Let it serve as a perfect example of your ways. Without taking the time to accurately quote me, your other "approximate" quote of me consisted of this: ....So Mike do think it would be fair to say that your declaration that “the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot.” when in fact his name appears well over three hundred times on dozens of pages in the report was “typical of your limited mindset”? Your practice of using bogus quotation marks referring to what I said speaks for itself. This is in fact what I said, and you could have quoted: The whole account of Atta's recruitment takes scarcely a page and is documented by uncorroborated hearsay. Just as the members of the President's Commission had trouble ascribing a motive to Lee Oswald, the 9/11 Commission was unable to assign a motive to Atta, other than an account of his background and increasingly fanatical beliefs that took up all of one page. Unlike the Warren Report that dwelled incessantly on Lee Oswald's childhood and background, The 9/11 Commission was incredibly succinct in their examination of Atta. Just going to the index, and reading every single word they write about the man they call the tactical leader of the plot takes no more than twenty or thirty minutes at the most. Their basis for most information comes from "friends" or "acquaintances" of Atta's It's really a damn shame what a shoddy job they did. History will not judge 9/11 Commission kindly, just as it has not the Warren Report. (bold added for Colby's comprehension) The above is exactly why you don't get much respect around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 She’s beautiful and an excellent actress but there is no reason to take her views on 9/11 and the Moon landings any more seriously than that of the person who sweeps the sidewalk in front of her apartment building. About 10% of the US thinks it’s “very likely” that the towers were brought down with explosives; I have no idea what the number is in France. In both countries we would expect a certain percentage of the members of any given profession to believe this. In the US at least I’ve seen no evidence that the percentage of people whose professional backgrounds would give them better insight into what happened believe it was “an inside job” at the same rate of the general population. The number of pilots or engineers who have publicly embraced such theories is some tiny faction of 1% of license holders, The points she mentioned have already been debunked here the towers for example were at close to capacity and thus presumably profitable. I agree, Len. Perhaps she is attempting to be named to the panel of Scholars on 911, or whatever its name is. Since she is French, I would be more interested in hearing her views on the civil rights of the residents of the Paris banlieus. We seem to reflexively drift into discussions of the US during the Jim Crow period, as if it were yesterday, and ignore the current plight of Muslims and Africans in France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 (edited) David, as you know, the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot. […] http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=137774 No comment. Edited March 2, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 David, as you know, the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot. […] http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=137774 No comment. Out of context by you again - a response directly to David, not you, in response to his comments about Atta's religious beliefs. Not surprising of you not to address the quotation contained in my last post nor acknowledge it when it was presented to you.. It was public record on this thread. Can your game get any weaker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now